Europa Universalis IV

[tyrannosaurus rex]

This is awesome.

 

[Kane]

EDIT: It also bears mention that it seems that there are NO level 1 Forts all over Europe, only all capitals have a free level 1 Fort. All other Forts cost money.

Bullshit.

fl 0: grey
fl1: red
fl2 : yellow
and then it gets green

 

[Delterius]

Thats how things are now. How many of those countries do you think can sustain 1.5 ducats for each province during early game wartime?

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

EDIT: It also bears mention that it seems that there are NO level 1 Forts all over Europe, only all capitals have a free level 1 Fort. All other Forts cost money.

Bullshit.

Check the diary again. ONLY capital provinces will have free forts. To me this suggests that 0 fort will be the new default, and only certain other provinces will have preset forts in history files due to the fact that 1->X forts every province will be deleterious as a strategy.

 

[Multiple Sarcasm]

Secondly, you can not walk past a fortress and its zone of control, as you have to siege down the blocking fort first.

Firstly, how does that make any sense at all?
Secondly: defeat enemy army -> it retreats behind a fort -> while you're sieging, it recovers both morale and numbers and/or recruits more units -> comes back. Rinse, repeat ad nauseam?

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

Secondly, you can not walk past a fortress and its zone of control, as you have to siege down the blocking fort first.

Firstly, how does that make any sense at all?
Secondly: defeat enemy army -> it retreats behind a fort -> while you're sieging, it recovers both morale and numbers and/or recruits more units -> comes back. Rinse, repeat ad nauseam?

It made even less sense how previously you had your armies run off vast distances inland into enemy territory, and chasing after stacks. I'd say this change is pure incline. At the very least it will force an attacker to conserve their strength more carefully instead of the old decisive battle -> whack-a-stack approach, AND it will mean fort provinces can be designed around being attrition zones meaning you just can't skip sieging in those desert/mountain/swamp chokepoints this time around.

 

[Multiple Sarcasm]

It made even less sense how previously you had your armies run off vast distances inland into enemy territory, and chasing after stacks. I'd say this change is pure incline. At the very least it will force an attacker to conserve their strength more carefully instead of the old decisive battle -> whack-a-stack approach, AND it will mean fort provinces can be designed around being attrition zones meaning you just can't skip sieging in those desert/mountain/swamp chokepoints this time around.

From what I've read, popping moles is still there - you'll just have to sit around forts with both thumbs up your bum as a bonus, waiting for the enemy to gather more moles.
The biggest annoyance of current system was how retreating armies could magically avoid enemies already present in a province they're retreating through - which would take no effort to fix if that was a goal. This new arbitrary restriction Johan pulled out of his LSD trip sounds like it will only make warring in EU4 more of a chore, not an improvement.

 

[baturinsky]

Secondly, you can not walk past a fortress and its zone of control, as you have to siege down the blocking fort first.

Firstly, how does that make any sense at all?

Supply line. You can't suuply army if there is an enemy castle in the way.

 

[Multiple Sarcasm]

Secondly, you can not walk past a fortress and its zone of control, as you have to siege down the blocking fort first.

Firstly, how does that make any sense at all?

You can't suuply army if there is an enemy castle in the way.

1. Realistically: In the way of what? Forts were miniscule spots on a map, and not every road went through them. Suggesting there would be no way around them is ludicrous.
2. Gamey: What's the point of province supply limit, then, if all supply comes from some other place? Increased attrition / reduced province supply limit for enemy could at least be somewhat rationalized, but we aren't getting that.

 

[Delterius]

If a fort is still standing AND it is capable os estabilishing a zone of control across entire provinces, then it sounds strange that supply trains can move through unaffected.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

If said fort has a standing garrison of several thousand men, it's more than capable of disrupting your supply lines.

 

[Average Manatee]

For the most of the game the concept of supply lines was largely meaningless. Armies were expected to supply themselves through good-old rape and pillaging of the locals, hence why the 30 years war killed nearly half of the germans. It wouldn't really become a huge part of warfare until the Napoleonic era, and his army starved invading Russia nonetheless.

 

[Delterius]

What about manpower? Armies behind the enemy fortification should not be able to reinforce which coupled with scorched earth, winter and nanaturally inhospitable terrain could be nightmarish.

I could see warfare in EU becoming a bit like early vicky, where most objectives can be pressed at the peace table due to more limited advances than sieging and occupying the entirety and occupying France.

 

[Multiple Sarcasm]

If said fort has a standing garrison of several thousand men, it's more than capable of disrupting your supply lines.

So why can't you leave 10K of yours to keep the garrison cooped up and move on with the rest of your army?

 

[baturinsky]

EU4 is full of cutting corners and unrealistic gamism.

For the most of the game the concept of supply lines was largely meaningless. Armies were expected to supply themselves through good-old rape and pillaging of the locals, hence why the 30 years war killed nearly half of the germans. It wouldn't really become a huge part of warfare until the Napoleonic era, and his army starved invading Russia nonetheless.

It was a huge part of warfare as early as Sun Tzu. Europe was just too small and too densely populated enough to sustain armies with local resources.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

EU4 is full of cutting corners and unrealistic gamism.

And this is NOT a bad thing in itself.

Just look at Supreme Ruler games, which are a pretty good example of complexity for its own sake being counterproductive.

 

[baturinsky]

EU4 is full of cutting corners and unrealistic gamism.

And this is NOT a bad thing in itself.

Generally, yes, but partucularly in EU4 a lot of stuff is too artificial and counter-intuitive. King mana, 5+ different types of dependant territories with own rules for each, coring and overextension, fixed trade net and trade nodes, etc.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

EU4 is full of cutting corners and unrealistic gamism.

And this is NOT a bad thing in itself.

Generally, yes, but partucularly in EU4 a lot of stuff is too artificial and counter-intuitive. King mana, 5+ different types of dependant territories with own rules for each, coring and overextension, fixed trade net and trade nodes, etc.

I look at this from a perspective of game functionality, and while I do think that monarch power has far too much of an arbitrary random factor involved, for the most part the key thing is that the rules (and that's what these things are, rules of the game) operate in a very clear and internally consistent manner. Trade network in particular is a notable improvement over the previous trade system in EU3 as it does involve a certain degree of increased thinking and strategic opportunity than the prior system based on hoarding, thanks to the way cashflow can be directed and manipulated to destinations (though I do agree that the end nodes are too tightly clustered together). And it's certainly a better game mechanic than the invisible pool that the market is in Vicky or Supreme Ruler.

 

[Dead Guy]

If you could only somehow, say, use overwhelming trade power in one or two nodes combined, perhaps along with a hefty load of dip, to permanently (until someone else does, at least) change the direction of a trade connection. That way I wouldn't have to conquer benelux every single game I play as a northern european nation.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

I think the problem is really just in how end nodes work, since they're like black holes in the game right now. At present, they're the primary problem with the trade system, routes themselves are a good idea.

 

[baturinsky]

I think nearly all EU4 weird mechanics stem from having to patch up the lack of proper logistic model, with goods transported, consumed and traded.

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

True, but implementing such a model may be worse than not having one. It's a very delicate business to make such a logistical model that adds to the game instead of being detrimental.

 

[Delterius]

A lot of people on the PDX forums are complaining about an overall lack of Monarch mana points. I only ever experience this as an issue until my nation becomes wealthy enough to support level 3 advisors with western tech, at which point I'm pretty much swarming with administrative power. Does your experience mirror mine?

 

[Vaarna_Aarne]

Yea, it's pretty much like that, but before you can have triple three advisors, you're heavily under the tender mercies of pure chance.

 

[baturinsky]

A lot of people on the PDX forums are complaining about an overall lack of Monarch mana points. I only ever experience this as an issue until my nation becomes wealthy enough to support level 3 advisors with western tech, at which point I'm pretty much swarming with administrative power. Does your experience mirror mine?

Admin and diplo mana can always be converted into more provinces.